4.  The applicants were born in 1978 and 1981 and live in Manisa and Izmir respectively.
5.  On 1 May 2006 a demonstration was held in Izmir to celebrate Labour Day. The applicants, who were participants in this demonstration, claimed that they were attacked by police officers from the Rapid Response Force (Çevik Kuvvet) during the demonstration. According to the applicants, the police officers initially targeted the first applicant. When she fell to the ground, the second applicant tried to shield her, at which point he was also attacked, sprayed with pepper gas, kicked and beaten with truncheons. They submitted a photograph in which the second applicant is covering a person on the ground a couple of metres behind a group of police officers holding truncheons, and an officer is bending down towards them. The photograph was published on 2 May 2006 in a local newspaper. The applicants were not arrested.
6.  On the same day, after the demonstration, the applicants applied to the Human Rights Centre at the Izmir Bar Association with a view to requesting legal aid in order to lodge their complaints against the police. At the Izmir Bar Association, photographs showing their injuries were taken.
7.  On 2 May 2006 the applicants lodged a complaint with the Izmir public prosecutor against the police officers involved in the incidents. They complained that they had been subjected to ill-treatment by the police and requested to be referred to the Forensic Medicine Institute and to a university hospital. In their complaint they noted that their representative had been appointed by the Izmir Bar Association to act on their behalf. In support of their complaint the applicants submitted to the public prosecutor’s office the aforementioned photograph published on 2 May 2006.
8.  On the same day the Izmir public prosecutor took statements from the applicants regarding their complaints. The first applicant stated that she had attended the demonstration with the trade unions and had been attacked by police officers who wanted to disperse certain demonstrators. She further stated that the second applicant had also been beaten while he was attempting to shield her from the police attacks. The second applicant made a statement along the same lines.
9.  On 3 May 2006 the applicants were examined by the Izmir branch of the Forensic Medicine Institute. According to the report prepared at the end of the first applicant’s examination, there was swelling on the right parietal- occipital region of the head and sensitivity on palpation, sensitivity on the right side of the jaw when chewing, and sensitivity on palpation in the area between the right eye and the right temporal, an 8 x 1 cm red ecchymosis (bruising) above the left scapula, a 6 x 3 cm blue-purple ecchymosis on the upper outer right arm, and a 7 x 3 cm blue-purple ecchymosis with a red outer lining on the upper outer right thigh, together with sensitivity on palpation in the ecchymotic areas. The doctor stated that the injuries observed on the first applicant’s body were the result of blunt soft tissue trauma which could be treated by simple medical intervention and that she had also suffered from nausea on the date of the incident because of the gas which the police had used that day. A psychiatric examination of the first applicant revealed that she was generally in good health, but was suffering from diminished concentration and had trouble finding the correct words when speaking, on account of the blows to her head.
10.  The medical report drawn up regarding the second applicant on the same date identified 5, 4 and 2 cm linear red ecchymoses and a purple ecchymosis 3 cm in diameter on the left side of the forehead, an epithelised purple ecchymosis of 1 cm in diameter at the root of the nose, a 0.5 cm purple ecchymosis on the outer side of the right zygomatic bone, a green ecchymosis of 3 cm in diameter on the upper outer left scapular region, a vertical 11 x 2 cm green-yellow ecchymosis on the left paravertebral region and the inner left scapular region, horizontal purple ecchymoses of 13 x 0.5 cm and 12 x 0.5 cm on the lower back, 8 x 0.5 cm and 6 x 0.5 cm light yellow ecchymoses on the left of the waist, two 3 x 1 cm purple ecchymoses of 2 cm in diameter on the right outer bicep, a swelling of 1 cm in diameter on the left parietal region, a V-shaped 4 x 1.5 cm red‑brown ecchymotic abrasion on the lower inner area of the left knee cap, a swelling of the left thumb, and nausea due to pepper gas spray he had been exposed to on the day of the incident. The report stated that the injuries on the second applicant’s body were the result of blunt trauma and that they could be treated by simple medical intervention. In psychological terms, the second applicant was found to be suffering from trauma and flashbacks.
11.  On 5 May 2006 the second applicant was referred by the Izmir public prosecutor to the Izmir Atatürk Teaching and Research Hospital for further medical examinations. The findings in the medical report drawn up at the hospital on 8 May 2006 were consistent with the previous report and indicated that the injuries inflicted on the applicant had not caused him any permanent physical damage.
12.  On an unspecified date, the applicants’ representative submitted to the public prosecutor’s office three photographs of the second applicant taken on 1 May 2006 at the Human Rights Centre of the Izmir Bar Association and showing injuries he had sustained.
13.  On 24 May 2006 the Izmir police headquarters submitted a statement to the Izmir public prosecutor giving an account of the events that took place on 1 May 2006. They stated that the police had only used force to the extent authorised under Law no. 2559 on the Duties and Powers of the Police in order to disperse demonstrators who were acting in a disorderly manner and throwing stones at the police. They further stated that there was no indication that the applicants had been assaulted by police officers.
14.  On 21 June 2006 an expert report was submitted to the Izmir public prosecutor regarding the incidents of 1 May 2006, which had been prepared on the basis of thirty-two photographs and twenty-seven minutes of video footage of the demonstrations held on that date. The report stated in particular that a woman who resembled the female applicant had quarrelled with and pushed a police officer during the incidents. There was no indication of an assault against the applicants in the material examined.
15.  On 29 June 2006 the Izmir public prosecutor decided not to prosecute the police officers involved in the incidents. The public prosecutor held that the injuries mentioned in the applicants’ medical reports were not life-threatening and only required simple medical treatment. The public prosecutor further noted that a woman who resembled the female applicant had quarrelled with and pushed a police officer during the incidents. He also noted that photographs of the incidents showed that some demonstrators were holding flags of illegal organisations; that some shop windows had been broken; that paving stones had been torn up; that posters of the leader of a terrorist organisation, Abdullah Öcalan, were being held up, and that demonstrators had thrown stones at the police. The public prosecutor concluded that the police officers had acted under the authority granted by Law no. 2559 to fend off the attacks they had faced, and that there was no evidence to support the applicants’ allegations that the police had used excessive force against them.
16.  In the meantime, the second applicant had applied to the Izmir Branch of the Human Rights Foundation of Turkey (İnsan Hakları Vakfı) on 3 May 2006 for further medical examinations. According to the medical report drawn up by the Human Rights Foundation on 17 July 2006, which mainly repeated the findings of the previous reports, the second applicant’s injuries were consistent with his allegations of ill-treatment.
17.  On 14 August 2006 the applicants objected to the Izmir public prosecutor’s decision of 29 June 2006.
18.  On 6 September 2006 the Karşıyaka Assize Court rejected the applicants’ objection.
19.  According to a handwritten note on the envelope containing the Karşıyaka Assize Court’s decision of 6 September 2006, submitted by the applicants, that decision was communicated to their representative on 13 November 2006.